CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 décembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 15 December 2017     FOURTH SECTION Application no. 72159/13 Zoltán BACHSITZ against Hungary lodged on 8 November 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention on remand on the suspicion of bank robbery between 4 September 2013 and 2 October 2014, allegedly on the basis of decisions worded in a rather stereotypical and summary form, without demonstrating the existence of specific facts in support of their conclusions on the particular grounds for detention, and without due consideration of the applicant’s personal circumstances and of alternative, less stringent measures for ensuring his appearance at trial. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Were the reasons relied upon by the domestic courts when detaining the applicant and prolonging his detention on remand relevant and sufficient for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Did the domestic courts give due consideration to alternative, less stringent measures for ensuring the applicant’s appearance at trial (see, mutatis mutandis and among other authorities, Bandur v. Hungary , no. 50130/12, §§ 64-68, 5 July 2016)?